W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: On the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) document

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:25:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBUyMS82ew62k1A98Enzv5DtGzx53wDUz9cy4MQ+sWbCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> I think Philippe did answer your broader question, though not in much detail. He not only said that the work is in scope but also that  it is appropriate for the HTML Working Group to work on extensions specs like the Encrypted Media Extensions specification," and that "the W3C Team do believe that use cases like premium content should be
> addressed in the Open Web Platform in order to bring it to its full potential". This is also explicitly given as the position of the W3C Team as a whole.
>
> Thus, while not a lot of detail is given, the Chairs take this to say that the W3C Team believes this work is in scope for the W3C itself, consistent with the W3C's principles, and appropriate for the WG to pursue. We specifically asked the Team to weigh in, because we believe it's not appropriate for the HTML WG Chairs to rule on what is appropriate for the W3C as a whole. We have also asked the W3C Team to explicitly put this question to the Advisory Committee in the form of charter review, since that is the other body with authority over what work is in scope for the W3C itself.

"Not a lot of detail is given" is an understatement, since the
entirety of the wider W3C perspective was limited to the single
sentence:

"While the W3C Team do believe that use cases like premium content
should be addressed in the Open Web Platform in order to bring it to
its full potential, we're also looking forward for the HTML Working
Group to address any technical concerns raised against the EME draft."

This sentence does not address any of the issues that have been
brought up by multiple HTMLWG members about how the EME spec violates
the W3C's principles and our spirit, as shown through our history of
work.  It's an empty statement of preference with no details.

> I recommend that further discussion on this point should proceed via the AC or otherwise be taken up directly with the W3C Team.

Given that my company officially supports the publication of this
draft, I am unclear as to how I can participate in any further
discussion via the AC.  The W3C Team seems to be ignoring the concerns
stated by multiple HTMLWG members, if PLH's message is taken at face
value.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2013 20:26:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 9 February 2013 20:26:21 GMT